B. Amit Sthalekar, J.;— By this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 31.1.2006 passed by respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdih Ballia whereby the appointment of the petitioners has been set aside and regularization of services of the petitioners has also been set aside. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners were engaged as sweepers (safai karmchari) in the Nagar Panchayat Maniyar, Ballia. Their case is that there were 16 sanctioned posts of safai karmchari in the Nagar Panchayat Maniyar, Ballia and only four regular employees had been appointed against the sanctioned posts. Considering the requirement of job the Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Maniyar, Ballia recommended to the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Maniyar Ballia for making appointment of six safai karmcharis. It is also stated that the Chairman, on this recommendation fixed 27.1.2001 as the last date for submission of applications for appointment on the said posts and 28.1.2001 was fixed for interview. The Executive Engineer also issued a memo dated 17.1.2001 which is stated to be information to the general public inviting applications from interested candidates. On the basis of the interview a Select List of six safai karmcharis was prepared and a recommendation was made for appointment of the petitioners in terms of the select list dated 28.1.2001. The petitioners were approved for appointment. and finally appointment letter was issued to them in pursuance of the approval granted on 30.1.2001 and consequently they joined their duties on 1.2.2001. However, when no salary was paid to the petitioners, they approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdih, Ballia and also submitted a detailed representation on 31.7.2005 addressed to the Chairman/Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Maniyar, Ballia. They also approached the District Magistrate regarding payment of salary. Finally when no action was taken Writ Petition No.61414 of 2005, Anil Rawat and others vs. State of U.P. and others was filed, which was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 16.9.2005 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Ballia to decide the representation of the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter a contempt petition was also filed in which notices were issued by the High Court to the District Magistrate, Ballia on 4.1.2006. Ultimately the impugned order dated 31.1.2006 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdih, Ballia. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Thereafter a contempt petition was also filed in which notices were issued by the High Court to the District Magistrate, Ballia on 4.1.2006. Ultimately the impugned order dated 31.1.2006 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdih, Ballia. Hence the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 31.1.2006 it will be seen that the reason given for terminating the services of the petitioners is that on the date when the petitioners were appointed in service as Safai Karmchari there was a complete ban on recruitment in the year 1991 and as such the order for regularizing the services of the petitioner has also been set aside. 5. However, from a perusal of the order dated 17.1.2001, which is stated to be a memo issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat for general information regarding appointment on the post of safai karmchari, it will be seen that the alleged memo is not a newspaper/advertisement giving wide publication or notice of the posts. The said memo cannot be said to be a wide publication in the newspaper for information to the general public and in fact at the bottom of the said letter in column-6 it is mentioned that this is the notice for pasting on the Notice Board. Such a memo cannot be held to be valid as it is not in the nature of an advertisement, giving wide publication and information to the general public, regarding the vacancies to be filled up and in this view of the matter the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be valid when tested on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Sri Shesh Kumar at this stage submitted that in the memo it has been mentioned in the column no.5 that the memo was also sent to the Employment Exchange, Ballia. Sending the memo to the Employment Exchange does not ensure wide publication inasmuch as notice to the Employment Exchange ensures employment only to those who are registered with the Employment Exchange. 7. Sending the memo to the Employment Exchange does not ensure wide publication inasmuch as notice to the Employment Exchange ensures employment only to those who are registered with the Employment Exchange. 7. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 , Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam Krishna District, A.P. vs. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and others held in para-6 which reads as follows:- "Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. Besides, it is not the case of the petitioners that they were registered with the Employment Exchange or that their names were recommended by the Employment Exchange and there is no pleading to that effect in the writ petition either. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. Besides, it is not the case of the petitioners that they were registered with the Employment Exchange or that their names were recommended by the Employment Exchange and there is no pleading to that effect in the writ petition either. In the circumstances, the very appointment of the petitioners on the post of Safai Karmchari is in violation of the Rule of Equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is void ab initio having been made without any advertisement or without any known process of law, giving wide notice and information to the general public, who may be interested for applying against the said post. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. _____________